Comments on: Hillary Clinton As Secretary Of State? Why She Should Say “Thanks, But No Thanks!” http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/11/17/hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-why-she-should-say-thanks-but-no-thanks/ The World Affairs Blog Network Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:52:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Kika http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/11/17/hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-why-she-should-say-thanks-but-no-thanks/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Kika Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:58:52 +0000 http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/11/17/hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-why-she-should-say-thanks-but-no-thanks/#comment-79 Definitely, accepting this post is a risky move by Sen. Clinton, but remaining in her seat without being chair of any important committee (she tried to replace Ted Kennedy, but his answer was no, he is still alive and in a hurry to make an important move to reinforce his legacy -in the health care sector, btw-) is even more risky. She will be independent with no significant power in the Senate. As Gonzalez mentioned, as a SS Clinton would tie herself to the 'successes and failures' of the Obama administration. Besides getting executive experience, she will receive all the media attention and if Obama ends up putting the country back on track, she will have enormous chances of becoming the next president of the United States. Otherwise she will be seen as unpatriotic for not supporting her president and given the circumstances and her critical voice will sound like a revenge, for what? just to be aging out of the spot light 'till 68 when she can run for prez again? She won't do that, it will burn her bridges to future voters. I prefer her to take the challenge and age with power to create an eternal political persona (in the sense of Margaret Thatcher that carries a timeless strong lady-like appearance). We don't know if Obama will be successful or not but we know that not moving is not choice. Definitely, accepting this post is a risky move by Sen. Clinton, but remaining in her seat without being chair of any important committee (she tried to replace Ted Kennedy, but his answer was no, he is still alive and in a hurry to make an important move to reinforce his legacy -in the health care sector, btw-) is even more risky. She will be independent with no significant power in the Senate.

As Gonzalez mentioned, as a SS Clinton would tie herself to the 'successes and failures’ of the Obama administration. Besides getting executive experience, she will receive all the media attention and if Obama ends up putting the country back on track, she will have enormous chances of becoming the next president of the United States. Otherwise she will be seen as unpatriotic for not supporting her president and given the circumstances and her critical voice will sound like a revenge, for what? just to be aging out of the spot light 'till 68 when she can run for prez again? She won't do that, it will burn her bridges to future voters.

I prefer her to take the challenge and age with power to create an eternal political persona (in the sense of Margaret Thatcher that carries a timeless strong lady-like appearance).

We don't know if Obama will be successful or not but we know that not moving is not choice.

]]> By: Edite Lynch http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/11/17/hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-why-she-should-say-thanks-but-no-thanks/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Edite Lynch Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:22:35 +0000 http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/11/17/hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-why-she-should-say-thanks-but-no-thanks/#comment-74 Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, is inconceivable. She carries too much baggage, not just her own but that of her husband as well. His nefarious financial dealings abroad ,including Frank Guistra in Canada, are very suspect but he claims he will disclose his donors to his Foundation I believe he will seriously vet his list. The Clintons cannot be trusted, for anything. Her "sniper fire in Bosnia" comments, labelled as" misspeaking" instead of outright lying is legion.How can anyone trust what she has to say about anything. Will she exaggerate, continue to "misspeak" about very crucial foreign affairs? Bill Clinton's assertion that he will disclose all of his donors is a direct lobbying tactic to embarass Obama into appointing his wife. Does anyone really believe he will divest himself of his conflicts of interest viv a vis his Foundation , foreign speaking engagements or foreign ties to suspect countries?I don't believe Americans have ever encountered such a power-hungry man and wife team that is prepared to do anything for power. How extremely sad and discomforting. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, is inconceivable. She carries too much baggage, not just her own but that of her husband as well. His nefarious financial dealings abroad ,including Frank Guistra in Canada, are very suspect but he claims he will disclose his donors to his Foundation I believe he will seriously vet his list. The Clintons cannot be trusted, for anything. Her “sniper fire in Bosnia” comments, labelled as” misspeaking” instead of outright lying is legion.How can anyone trust what she has to say about anything. Will she exaggerate, continue to “misspeak” about very crucial foreign affairs? Bill Clinton's assertion that he will disclose all of his donors is a direct lobbying tactic to embarass Obama into appointing his wife. Does anyone really believe he will divest himself of his conflicts of interest viv a vis his Foundation , foreign speaking engagements or foreign ties to suspect countries?I don't believe Americans have ever encountered such a power-hungry man and wife team that is prepared to do anything for power. How extremely sad and discomforting.

]]> By: Nonna Gorilovskaya http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/11/17/hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-why-she-should-say-thanks-but-no-thanks/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Nonna Gorilovskaya Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:21:03 +0000 http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/11/17/hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-why-she-should-say-thanks-but-no-thanks/#comment-67 I think that she'll take if it is offered. NYT on why Bill might be a problem: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/us/politics/18clintons.html?_r=1 I think that she’ll take if it is offered. NYT on why Bill might be a problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/us/politics/18clintons.html?_r=1

]]>